The “bare-metal defense” generally maintains that a product manufacturer is not liable for asbestos-related injuries if the original product was “bare metal” and asbestos materials were later added to the product.
Category Archives: News
Settlement Releases, with or without Joint Tortfeasor Language, Not Discoverable in Rhode Island for Liability Purposes
In Lepore v. A.O. Smith Corp., By way of a Motion to Reconsider, the Rhode Island Superior Court (Gibney, P.J.) addressed Defendants’ Request to Compel the discovery of settlement releases executed between the Plaintiff and certain co-defendants.
NYCAL: Product Engineer Affidavit, Alone, Not Enough to Prove Absence of Asbestos in Products
In In Re: New York County Asbestos Litigation, Alvin Smith and Caroline Smith v. Advance Auto Part Inc., et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment despite a product engineer’s conclusion that none of the defendant’s products that plaintiff identified contained asbestos.
Upstate New York: Defendant’s Motion Granted, Plaintiffs Interrogatory Responses Alone are Insufficient
Recently, Justice James McCarthy presiding over the asbestos cases in New York’s Fifth Judicial District, granted defendant Cytec’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, finding no evidence to support a claim as plaintiffs’ responses to interrogatories are insufficient to defeat such a motion.
Mass. Federal Judge Rules that Place of Injury Dictates Applicable State Law in Asbestos Wrongful Death Action
On May 9, 2018, U.S. Judge Marianne B. Bowler of the District of Massachusetts presided over the issue of whether Massachusetts law or Maine law applied to the substantive issues of an asbestos-injury lawsuit brought by Ruth Burleigh on behalf of Ernest Burleigh, who allegedly died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure.
Punitive Damages in Product Liability Actions
In resolving certified questions, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the common-law rule that limited punitive damages to litigation expenses less costs was inapplicable to punitive damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA).
“Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.” Massachusetts’s Six-Year Statute of Repose and Asbestos Claims
In Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., the Massachusetts District Court, Zobel, J., addressed whether the Massachusetts statute of repose for certain tort actions, codified as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2B (“Section 2B”), applies to asbestos claims.
Does Connecticut Tort Law Permit Medical Monitoring Based on Asbestos Exposure in the Absence of a Present Injury?
The court in Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. was faced with the issue of whether Connecticut tort law permits, or should permit, recovery based on asbestos exposure in the absence of any present clinical injury or physical symptoms of an asbestos-related illness or disease.
“You’re on the Hook”: Rhode Island Superior Court finds Duty of Care Owed in “Secondary Exposure” Claim
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
Rhode Island Judge Found Plaintiff’s Allegations of Asbestos Exposure Constituted Conjecture Inadequate
In a rare turn of events, on April 30 2018, Judge Alice B. Gibney vacated her prior judgment denying G.E.’s motion for summary judgment when presented with a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Order filed by the defeated Defendant.